Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On 09.09.2015, two agreements were entered into between the appellant namely, Narendra Hirawat and Company (for short ‘NHC’) and respondent no.1, namely Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘SME’) for the rights of films “Sholay and Sholay 3D” for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2022 for an amount of Rs.20 crores. The second agreement of the same date was executed for the rights of the same films “Sholay and Sholay 3D” for the period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2027 for an amount of Rs.5 crores. This was in regard to the first set of appeals (hereinafter referred to as “Sholay appeal”). In the second set of appeals, similar agreements were executed on the same date between the NHC and respondent no.1 therein i.e., Generation Three Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to ‘G3’). These were with regard to the rights of the 32 films given in favour of NHC for a similar length of period. The facts in both these sets of appeals, though may not be identical but are very similar. For convenience we shall deal with the facts of the first set of appeals, which we shall henceforth refer to as “Sholay appeal”.

The respondent no.2, by notice dated 26.08.2019, terminated the sub­license agreement dated 16.05.2018 which was entered into with NHC, and demanded refund of over Rs.11 crores from NHC.

With regard to the termination notice dated 18.06.2019 issued by respondent no.1, NHC filed a commercial suit on 30.08.2019. Reliefs claimed included prayer for declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and exclusive licensee in respect of the suit films for all territories, further declaration that the termination letter was illegal, bad in law, null and void and unenforceable, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enjoying the licensed rights and damages. Temporary injunction was also asked for. By order dated 09.03.2020, the learned Single Judge of the High Court (before whom the commercial suit was filed) granted interim injunction in favour of NHC, restraining the respondents from disturbing the enjoyment of license rights of the appellant in the suit films and also restrained the respondent no.1 ­ SME from acting on the termination notice. Respondents no.1 & 2 were also restrained from acting on the agreement executed on 24.10.2019 which, after the filing of the suit, was entered into between respondents no.1 and 2, awarding rights of the film Sholay and Sholay 3D in the first set of appeals and 32 films in the second set of appeals in favour of respondent no.2. An intra­court appeal was filed assailing the order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court, which has been allowed in favour of the respondents and, hence, these appeals before this Court.

(v) the issue is to be looked at from the point of view as to whether on refusal of the injunction the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury keeping in view the strength of the parties' case;

 (vi) balance of convenience or inconvenience ought to be considered as an important requirement even if there is a serious question or prima facie case in support of the grant;

(vii) whether the grant or refusal of injunction will adversely affect the interest of the general public which can or cannot be compensated otherwise.” In our opinion, however, each individual case is to be decided on its own facts and in the present case, in view of the facts as narrated above, equity is in favour of NHC. It has made substantial payments and the balance, which is little more than 10% of the total amount, has already been deposited in the High Court in terms of the injunction order of the Single Judge. As regards the claim of the respondent no.2, what is noteworthy is that initially the sub­license agreement was executed between NHC and respondent no. 2 on 16.05.2018. After the dispute arose, the termination notice was issued by the respondent no.1 on 18.06.2019. The suit had been filed by NHC on 29.08.2019 and it was only then, on 24.10.2019 that the respondent no.2 entered into a fresh agreement with respondent no.1 with regard to the same films being Sholay and Sholay 3D in the first set of appeals and 32 other films in the second set of appeals.

There shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………,J.

(VINEET SARAN) ………………………………,J.

(ANIRUDDHA BOSE) NEW DELHI;

MARCH 07, 2022.

ITEM NO.42     Court 9 (Video Conferencing)             SECTION IX

               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F       I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).14124-14125/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-08-2021 in CAL No.8026/2020 26-08-2021 in CAL No. 9909/2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) NARENDRA HIRAWAT AND CO. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) (List on 07.03.2022 as a first case after fresh matter IA No. 124327/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 114326/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.122789/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No.121256/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No.118654/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH SLP(C) No. 14316-14317/2021 (IX) (IA No.124314/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 115227/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No.122766/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 07-03-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :